On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:40:53 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 2:01:45 AM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 3:41:59 PM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > > > >
> > > > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> > > >
> > > > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > > > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> > > >
> > > > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > > > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> > > >
> > > > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> > > >
> > > > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > > > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
> > >
> > > Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> > > in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.
> > Quite apart from what one should tell learners of the language,
> > non-restrictives with "that" don't feel that bad to me. This might
> > be an example:
> > No town that I know of in all the world has such a panorama of perpetual
> > beauty spread before it as Denver has in this best and broadest belt of
> > the Rocky Mountains, that rises up from the valley in which it is built,
> > and winds away to the right and to the left as far as the eye can see....
> > - Samuel Bowles, Across the Continent (1865)
> Would that have been written in 1965, let alone 2015?
It doesn't sound old-fashioned to me.
> > Another (punctuation aside):
> > Two of the largest canals connecting major water bodies are the Panama
> > Canal that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Suez Canal
> > that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea.
> > - James Carlton, Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies (2003)
> I suspect he's assuming that his readers have a typical knowledge of geography, i.e.
> no idea where those two canals are, or that there might as well be several canals with
> the same name. If you make them (with intonation/commas) into non-restrictives, they
> really do sound insulting; as it is, they're informative for those who need it and
> remindful for those who don't. Presumably he chose those examples because they're
> the most extreme examples of the mixing of different biomes and it's important
> to stress how alien the Atlantic and Pacific / Mediterranean and Red are to each other.
Exactly. The geographical ignoramuses you mention earlier are not going
to be reading a book like this. He is simply adding information to remind
his readers of the bio-geographical implications of these canals. A
restrictive reading is impossible.